Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33869628›Full record

ArticleBioMed research international2021

Outcome Analysis of Intramedullary Nailing Augmented with Poller Screws for Treating Difficult Reduction Fractures of Femur and Tibia: a Retrospective Cohort Study.

Junfei Guo, Junpu Zha, Jun Di, Yingchao Yin, Zhiyong Hou, Yingze Zhang

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BioMed research international, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Avoiding deformity in proximal tibial nailing: risk factors, deformity rules, tips, and tricks.OTA international : the open access journal of orthopaedic trauma · 2023
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Junfei GuoDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, Hebei 050051, China.
Junpu ZhaDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, Hebei 050051, China.
Jun DiDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, Hebei 050051, China.
Yingchao YinDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, Hebei 050051, China.
Zhiyong HouDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, Hebei 050051, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5838-4025
Yingze ZhangDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, Hebei 050051, China.
Hebei Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePoller screws may serve as an adjunctive reduction tool and aid fracture reduction while augmented with intramedullary (IM) nailing for treating diaphyseal or metaphyseal fractures of the femur and tibia. However, there is no consistent conclusion about whether the method of using IM nailing augmented with poller screws is more advantageous than using IM nailing alone.

methodsA total of 96 patients who received IM nailing with or without supportive poller screw for treating long-bone fractures in lower limbs and who experienced difficulties in performing reduction or IM insertion during the surgical process were included in this retrospective cohort study (33 patients with poller screws in group A versus 63 patients without poller screws in group B). Patient demographics including age, gender, and body mass index; injury-related data including fracture location, classification, and injury mechanism; operation-related data including American Society of Anesthesiologists, duration of operation, poller screw time, method of anesthesia, and volume of intraoperative hemorrhage; outcomes including fracture healing time; and incidence of outcomes of nonunion, malunion, infection, and secondary surgical procedures were evaluated.

resultsFracture healing time of patients in group A was significantly shorter than that of group B (18.3 ± 4.8 weeks versus 24.3 ± 3.0 weeks,

conclusionPoller screw augmentation of IM nailing is a favourable option to shorten fracture healing time and to reduce complication rates in terms of nonunion, malunion, and secondary surgical procedure in the treatment of both diaphyseal/metaphyseal fractures of the femur or tibia while compare with those treated by IM nailing alone.

Indexed as

Bone NailsBone ScrewsFracture Fixation, IntramedullaryAdultFemaleFemoral FracturesHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesTibial FracturesTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID33869628
PMCPMC8035000
OpenAlexW3149909131

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.